Iowa Court Voids Gay Marriage Ban
DES MOINES — Iowa became the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage on Friday, after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began with a suit filed on behalf of six same-sex couples in the lower courts.
The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days, making Iowa only the third state in the nation, along with Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage.
That's three down, and only 47 more to go. The Justices on the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling, noting that...
“We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law...If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded...The concept of equal protection, is deeply rooted in our national and state history, but that history reveals this concept is often expressed far more easily than it is practiced."
You can read the Court's summary and opinion papers, here.
But, why is the decision in Iowa so important? What makes this victory so different from similar decisions in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and California? Well, the first thing that makes this one different is that it didn't happen in a State that is traditionally considered a "liberal stronghold." On the contrary, Iowa is notoriously moderate and is considered a "swing state" in modern, national elections. Iowa is a part of the colloquially named "American Heartland." The decision here shows that when you take the political extremes out-of-the mix, the Law tends to fall down on the side of same-sex couples when it comes to questions of Equal Protection.
Another reason why the Iowa decision is so important is that Iowa played such a significant role in the Civil Rights struggle, and the State has a reputation for its desire to see everyone within its borders treated equally.
Iowa has been at the forefront of civil rights throughout its history. In 1839, in the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, the court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue. In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision. In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
So, let's raise our glasses to The Hawkey State, and give them three cheers!!!
HOORAY for Iowa!
HOORAY for Iowa!
HOORAY for Iowa!TTFN,
Blackout"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." ~ Iowa State Motto
I'm so excited! That's pretty close to Minnesota!
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
GO EQUALITY!!!!!!!
I read somewhere that this happened and I had to keep rereading cause I thought I was missing something.
It will be interesting to see what happens after the Supreme Court is done in the Golden State.
I have never considered Iowa much, I have some friends in school there. Maybe I should consider moving, since CA's budget is in the toilet and taxes are going up. 10% sales tax, can you believe it? and gay people who got married before nov 4 2008 don't know what that means.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I disagree that the argument that legalizing gay-marriage is creating equality. Currently, I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex whether through a civil marriage or through a religious service. Those who state that they are homosexual have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, therefore we have equality before the law.
In the Civil Rights Movement, those who were "black" did not have the right to the same institutions as those who were "white." The cases for equality were indeed granting both races the rights to the same institutions. However, as of now, both myself, and a homosexual person, have the right to the same institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
Are you saying marriage has nothing to do with attraction? How is the gay/straight distinction any less arbitrary than left/right handedness, tall/shortness, hair color, music taste, or religion? Why should the government make this distinction?
To say they are already equal is to miss the point. If Obama banned same-handed marriage, couples who are both left-handed would technically have the same right to marry opposite-handed individuals. But the government would be arbitrarily denying rights, which is absolutely shameful. What possible justification is there?
"left/right handedness, tall/shortness, hair color, music taste, or religion" are arbitrary traits because of heredity and the genes within your DNA. Homosexuality is not part of your genetic makeup so it is not 100% arbitrary.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
Are you saying these other things are part of one's genetic make up?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Religion has nothing to do with your DNA, and yet it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their religion. In fact, the protections of the 14th Amendment are not limited solely to invidious categorizations that are based on immutable biological traits.
Likewise assertion that "homosexuality is not part of your genetic makeup..." is not scientifically supportable, and it is a rather misleading comment since Sexual Orientation is a broad term which includes a number of related traits, some of which are biological, some are psychological and some are social. On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence that has established a biological basis for homosexuality.
The evidence is simply not behind your opinion, but that isn't really relevant since the 14th Amendment requires that ALL citizens receive the Equal Protection of the Laws...and not just those citizens who choose to form relationships to which you find acceptable.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Methinks you need to take a genetics class (again).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Arbitrary means 'unreasonable,' 'whimsical,' or 'random'. Example: banning same-handed marriage. Non-arbitrary means 'reasonable,' 'deliberate,' or 'predetermined'. Example: banning coerced marriage. The difference: the state has (obvious) reasons to ban coerced marriage. We're all waiting to hear the reasons for banning same-sex marriage. Do you know any?
Gay marriage is not just a language issue. In my state of Ohio, our "secular" government is still taxing same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples, and nobody can explain why. Let me put this in terms you can understand: it is just as illegal to arbitrarily overtax Christian groups as it is to arbitrarily overtax Christian individuals (note: it is also illegal to arbitrarily undertax churches, but the law inconsistently allows this). You would be up in arms over the inequality in a "worship tax" specifically on Christian churches even if everyone had "equal rights" to worship at mosques. This is an issue of equality.
Unfortunately I see now my mistake. I meant to point at "left/right handedness, tall/shortness, hair color" as genetic traits. However, it is true that a variety of factors go into homosexuality, including social and environmental factors, however there is no known gene for attraction to the same-sex, therefore I don't believe that homosexuality can be regarded than a trait because you are making the decision to be homosexual, rather than our genetic instinct to be heterosexual and therefore would have more basis.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
Unfortunately I see now my mistake. I meant to point at "left/right handedness, tall/shortness, hair color" as genetic traits.
Very few biologically based traits can be traced to back to a single gene in a one-to-one ratio. And, just because a particular group of genetic markers has not as of yet been identified doesn't mean that the trait is not influenced by the biology of the subject. Left-handedness is a great example of this, actually. One gene that influences left-handedness (LRRTM1) was only discovered in the last few years, but researchers knew even before the invention of modern genetics that the trait for left-handedness was biologically based. Why? Because biological traits have certain things in common about the way they show up in the human population. For example, when you study identical twins and compare them to similarly situated non-identical twins as well as to non-twin sibblings, the identical twins will always tend to show a higher concordance rate of the same biological traits than the other two populations. With biological traits, non-twins will tend to have the lowest concordance. Fraternal twins will usually be somewhere in the middle. And the identical twins will tend to show a significantly higher rate of sharing the same trait. This is of course exactly what you study left-handedness in twins. It is also what you find when you study homosexuality in twins.
However, it is true that a variety of factors go into homosexuality, including social and environmental factors, however there is no known gene for attraction to the same-sex, therefore I don't believe that homosexuality can be regarded than a trait because you are making the decision to be homosexual, rather than our genetic instinct to be heterosexual and therefore would have more basis.
You belief is neither objective, nor well-supported in the scientific literature (a survey of which I linked for you, above). In fact, every major western association of professionals in the relevant fields of science (medicine, psychology, psychiatry and sociology) agrees that the evidence does not suggest that gay people "choose" their sexual orientation.
But you seem to keep missing the point, which is that it doesn't matter (legally speaking) whether or not homosexuality is biological in nature. The fundamental rights of our citizens, and the protections against invidious discrimination which our Constitution guarantees is not in ANY way limited to apply only to categorizations based on biological traits. We prohibit discrimination based on creeds just as ardently as we do those based on biology.
You also keep missing the point that citizens are not required to justify to YOU (or more accurately, to the government) why they want to exercise a basic civil right. Rather, the onus is on those who object to that exercise to find a Constitutionally valid and compelling interest of the State to justify their objection. That's why these cases keep coming down on the side of LGBT people in out search for marriage equality. The fact that you don't "believe" in gay people, as well as the fact that our marriages appear to make you uncomfortable are NOT compelling interests that the State may used as a basis for denying gay couples the Equal Protection of the Law.
So, get over it already.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...used by bigots in the 1950's and 1960's that wanted to prevent interracial marriages. From the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967)...
The Court found this argument to be invalid then, and it is still invalid now. The "basic civil right" defined by the Court is the "freedom to marry," and anyone who wants to interfere in the exercise of a basic civil right has a high burden to meet in establishing a compelling interest for doing so. The landmark decision of Perez v. Sharpe (1948) notes that...
Likewise, the Iowa Supreme Court's decision deals specifically with your canard that because a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex, no discrimination exists...
The bottom line is simple. People don't need your permission to exercise the fundamental freedoms afforded to them a citizens of this country. On the contrary, the burden of proof lies on those who wish to restrict the rights of individuals to provide a legitimate compelling interest of the State to impose such a restriction. I contend that no such interest exists, and that the SOLE purpose behind limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is (usually religiously-motivated) discrimination.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation...By purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals, the ban on same-sex civil marriages differentiates implicitly on the basis of sexual orientation."
I disagree with this. Currently myself, whom i consider heterosexual, and a person who identifies themself as homosexual are completely equal as members of the human race. There is no genetic difference in our sexual orientation, therefore I don't believe that gay and lesbian people should be considered of different sexual orientation because any different sexual orientation than heterosexual is fabricated through whatever environment, going against what is our genetic instinct.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
"There is no genetic difference in our sexual orientation, therefore I don't believe that gay and lesbian people should be considered of different sexual orientation because any different sexual orientation than heterosexual is fabricated through whatever environment, going against what is our genetic instinct."
______________________________________________________________________
There is no genetic difference in whose sexual orientation? Yours and other heterosexuals?
You don't believe that gay and lesbian people should be considered of any sexual orientation other than heterosexual? So, we should call them heterosexual?
Any sexual orientation other than heterosexual is fabricated (doesn't exist) through whatever environment, going against a person's own genetics?
Is that what you meant?
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
...there are people who are more qualified both in terms of scientific experience AND in the law who have been tasked with determining whether or not opinions such as yours are credible and valid. In terms of the science, your opinion is not well-founded, and your legal opinion is equally lacking (as demonstrated by the UNANIMOUS ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court).
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...is that you have zero authority, experience, or standing to speak for anyone who is LGBTQ. As a heterosexual, you have no idea what our experience is. How does your experience as a heterosexual prove ANYTHING about what it is to be gay? This might be the weakest argument I've seen yet, and I've seen some pathetic ones.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I don;t have any experience as a homosexual and don;'t believe I have the authority to speak for them, but I understand that homosexuality is a mental state brought about through other factors than genetics, therefore something that becomes a state against what our nature tells us.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
...you have no understanding of what being gay is.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Do you have any actual, objective evidence that would suggest that your belief in this matter is anything other than an arbitrary assertion based in ignorance? If you "don't have any experience as a homosexual," then there must be some reasonably credible source which has informed your position, surely.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Explain to me, then, how individuals such as... ljmitchell come to identify as homosexual.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
ediblewoman and blackout are far more qualified and informed than I. I just have one question for ksullivan, or rather a thought.
Even if homosexuality is not *caused* entirely by genetic predisposition, which I find highly unlikely since almost everything, including the predisposition to mental states, impulse control, and fertility are linked to some genetic code, who are to say that it is wrong, let alone should be legislated by law?
Who are you to choose which "environmentally" conditioned behaviors are appropriate or inappropriate, especially on those which have nothing whatsoever to do with you, nor which cause any determinable harm to anyone?
Alcoholism is a problem, and causes violence, unwanted pregnancy, and innocent death when people drink and drive. Is it genetic? Some think so. Others don't. Either way, alcohol is legal. Why? Because in America, for the most part, the legal standard is one which honors individual *liberty.*
What I do with my genitals, and with whom is none of your G**Darned business. How can anyone possibly think that any kind of legislature around sexuality is appropriate, apart from protecting the innocent, who do not or cannot consent?
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I always thought my home state was a progressive one. I was very, very saddened yesterday when I caught a newsflash that CA has upheld Prop 8. I haven't had a chance to dig more deeply into it, but I am really disappointed :(.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
I approve of same sex marriage. For years I diapproved of this arrangement, but changed my mind. I was introduced to incest by my mother and aunt when I was 16 years old. This continued into my 50's. I am deeply involved in this relationship, and love both mom and aunt Joan. I can't say same sex is wrong when I myself am deeply committed to incest love. I felt a need to express myself to all who read this, I am a new member and felt a need to tell anyone who would listen,
I just wanted to say Hello, and Welcome to Progressiveu.org. I must admit your situation seems very strange, but there are people on this site who do possess quite a bit of intelligence and are independent minded enough to be able to help you progress. I can't promise all will be understanding, or nice, or kind, and some can be just plain brutal. It takes guts to come out with something like this, and I for one, want to thank you for joining this site. it's really a great place, once you find your way through the bullshitters.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard